Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:08 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

But is the NHS brilliant? Do the stats back that up? Is the NHS better than other administrations in other countries statistically?

After reading about this case I read one link that states total expenditure on health per person in the UK was $2,815 in 2006 and in the US it was $6,719. That can't be good?

It was you who said it is wrought with inefficiency, now you're asking me prove it isn't?
Comparing the amounts spent per head in UK and US tells us ab-sol-ute-ly nothing about efficiency, quality or equitable distribution of healthcare.
We would need to know how much was profit, how much was administration cost for the extra layer of invoicing / charging etc, how much the staff were paid, how much was fancy offices etc etc.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:09 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

After reading about this case I read one link that states total expenditure on health per person in the UK was $2,815 in 2006 and in the US it was $6,719. That can't be good?

No it is not good and is one reason why the US has got a whopping budget deficit and has lost its AAA credit rating. The US needs serious reform of its expensive and inefficient healthcare system.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:14 pm  

El Barbudo wrote: It was you who said it is wrought with inefficiency, now you're asking me prove it isn't? Comparing the amounts spent per head in UK and US tells us ab-sol-ute-ly nothing about efficiency, quality or equitable distribution of healthcare. We would need to know how much was profit, how much was administration cost for the extra layer of invoicing / charging etc, how much the staff were paid, how much was fancy offices etc etc. Good article here from a US perspective about healthcare reform: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... lth-reform Interesting to see the conclusion: Which is why it wouldn't be at all surprising if a board of 15 experts could play a major role in reducing expenses and improving care outcomes in the American medical industry. That's what corresponding boards of experts in France, Germany, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and so on do, which is why their health-care systems cost half what ours does, cover everyone in their countries, and generally provide better care.

El Barbudo wrote: It was you who said it is wrought with inefficiency, now you're asking me prove it isn't? Comparing the amounts spent per head in UK and US tells us ab-sol-ute-ly nothing about efficiency, quality or equitable distribution of healthcare. We would need to know how much was profit, how much was administration cost for the extra layer of invoicing / charging etc, how much the staff were paid, how much was fancy offices etc etc. Good article here from a US perspective about healthcare reform: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... lth-reform Interesting to see the conclusion: Which is why it wouldn't be at all surprising if a board of 15 experts could play a major role in reducing expenses and improving care outcomes in the American medical industry. That's what corresponding boards of experts in France, Germany, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and so on do, which is why their health-care systems cost half what ours does, cover everyone in their countries, and generally provide better care.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:37 pm  

I'm also more than a little concerned about some Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) apparently rationing the numbers of referrals a GP can make to hospitals. Some GP practises are being asked to "justify" their referrals. LINK

I'm also more than a little concerned about some Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) apparently rationing the numbers of referrals a GP can make to hospitals. Some GP practises are being asked to "justify" their referrals. LINK

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:41 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I'm opposed to any two-tier scheme.
My moral and political stance is that ALL are entitled to the same level of care.
Being richer should not mean being able to purchase better healthcare.

If I invent a cure for the common cold, that prevents it ever recurring in a patient, but it costs a billion pounds per treatment, should it be available on the NHS for all?
If not, should those who can afford it be allowed to buy it from me?
It hardly seems ethical to ban it's use from those prepared to pay.

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:49 pm  

An interesting blog by an East London GP: A Better NHS

An interesting blog by an East London GP: A Better NHS

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:44 pm  

I've never ever had a problem with the NHS when I have needed them and for the NHS to be privatised would be a disgrace.

[tb]

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:27 pm  

Saddened! wrote: But is the NHS brilliant? Yes Saddened! wrote: Do the stats back that up? yes Saddened! wrote: Is the NHS better than other administrations in other countries statistically? yes Saddened! wrote: After reading about this case I read one link that states total expenditure on health per person in the UK was $2,815 in 2006 and in the US it was $6,719. That can't be good? Because most of the US spending goes on transaction costs and to insurance companies. NHS costs less but gets better outcomes. Here's some links for you http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... world.html http://www.gponline.com/News/article/11 ... rvey-says/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... on-lansley and one from November last year http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... healthcare

Saddened! wrote: But is the NHS brilliant? Yes Saddened! wrote: Do the stats back that up? yes Saddened! wrote: Is the NHS better than other administrations in other countries statistically? yes Saddened! wrote: After reading about this case I read one link that states total expenditure on health per person in the UK was $2,815 in 2006 and in the US it was $6,719. That can't be good? Because most of the US spending goes on transaction costs and to insurance companies. NHS costs less but gets better outcomes. Here's some links for you http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... world.html http://www.gponline.com/News/article/11 ... rvey-says/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... on-lansley and one from November last year http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... healthcare

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:06 pm  

Richie wrote:

If I invent a cure for the common cold, that prevents it ever recurring in a patient, but it costs a billion pounds per treatment, should it be available on the NHS for all?
If not, should those who can afford it be allowed to buy it from me?
It hardly seems ethical to ban it's use from those prepared to pay.

The way I read it (and pretty much my take on healthcare provision too), is if you can afford to pay for full private treatment, then that's fine. Just don't expect the NHS to pick up the slack, when the private providers can't or won't provide the necessary treatment

[tb]

Re: Privatisation of NHS hospitals begins : Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:14 pm  

Oh, and another interesting link http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/circle- ... a-hospital Circle has been unable to make a profit. How will it turn around a hospital?

Oh, and another interesting link http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/circle- ... a-hospital Circle has been unable to make a profit. How will it turn around a hospital?